Arrogance of Addison; order is what makes things intelligible (recap of week six seminar)

Addison felt that publishing was a great way to spread ideas of religion and the universe to the common man. He felt that the writer should be clear and precise; organised in his thoughts and aim to please the reader not himself. He encouraged writers to keep their work energetic for the reader. This is all very well considering that the low of thirty and high of sixty percent of the people of his time could read, i.e. he was unable to reach all the masses because of the illiteracy.

'Spectator 476' (http://essays.quotidiana.org/addison/spectator_no_476/) examines in contrast different writing styles; the order or disorder in approach. Following a skeleton of structure to base your work upon as a writer is said to be much easier for the reader to understand, these ideas can apply to essay writing as a student. Knowing a lot but not having the necessary skill to present it well might make you less of an intellectual than someone who has fewer facts but presents them in an intelligible manner. Looking at the aspect of gathering information for modern day journalism I think that this concept is a good thing to keep in mind. It is not only about the content; it is the representation of the content. Addison is quite rude in criticising the writers that are not straight to the point saying that they only see spots and blemishes, he himself was a popular author. Addison appeared to appreciate the work of others, so was that sincere or sarcastic?

Addison's essay about laughter (http://essays.quotidiana.org/addison/laughter_1/) is philosophical. He presents two contrasting arguments, that laughter is good but that it is also bad. Laughter can be considered a defect in the construction of human identity. Work of the great past artists can be considered to be more pristine because they laughed less and focused more. Among academics today this is still considered to be true. The heavy academics are deeply serious whilst a shop worker might have a jolly giggle at every advantageous opportunity. Addison says that humour is good for relaxation therefore good for society but that it can soften the human mind.

I think that you could say that Addison was racist or certainly xenophobic. He targeted foreigners in his writing in an attitude of mockery and superiority. His writing style also consists of sarcasm and dry humour, some of his work is very funny until you pause to consider whether he is being serious at which point it could be considered entirely self praising and arrogant. In the essay about the shilling http://essays.quotidiana.org/addison/adventures_of_a_shilling/) Addison comments on the world and its trade. He mentions his friend’s view on the extreme nature of money’s being passed from hand to hand around the world relating ‘I defy (says he) any of these active persons to produce half the adventures that this twelvepenny piece has been engaged in’. This attitude of trade being too good to be true or too far fetched is adopted in his writing suggesting that he found the idea ridiculous.

Addison suggests a hate for superstition, alcohol, marriage, the army and the habitual speed and increase of worldwide trade. In the 'Royal Exchange' he speaks of intent dislike for the tastes for luxury that people began to acquire, he didn't like the commercial attitude of the merchants. Why need things that do not come from Britain? He found trade to be selfish, flamboyant and self obsessed. He felt that the by disturbing nature we defy it, and go against it. He believed in the loyalty to one's own country. He is daring in saying that he is unsure if people will agree with him. He says that it is impossible to be popular all the time. He had to change method to hold interest.

Could we say that the writings of Addison are similar or different to those of Locke? I think that Locke is a lot more conversational talking to his friends while Addison attacks more general matters and ideas. Do you think that Hobbes was an influence on Addison because he came before him? Hobbes’s state of nature is that we are bad; does this idea come through in Addison's work? It is clear that he finds the school of politics unclear, he hates extravagance, he rather believed in good manners and conduct.

In conclusion conversation is a lot more immediate than written text and it is therefore imperative that it is clear and comprehensible. Written work is less translucent; it can be checked. Written work also seems to immediately enter a realm of more assumed authority. People base their surety of something to be true with such phrases as 'Oh but I read it in the paper this morning'. A journalist needs to write with an understanding of both sides of the argument. Our seminar leader called this 'sitting on the fence with authority' allowing people to make their own decisions. A good writer needs to be able to adjust his or her writing to suit a particular readership; one must always consider who their audience is and target them appropriately. What’s on my mind? How do I make it understandable?



Bibliography:

Literacy (online) (last accessed 4 November 2009). Available at:
http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/print_culture/literacy

'Doctor Who'; the journeying through past times in a Journalism lecture

Chris Horrie taught today's lecture and provided some amusement in describing the clothing that the people of Joseph Addison's time would have worn, acute descriptions to their very tall wigs for example. In the 1600's and early 1700's there was an immense amount of focus on insincere politeness, all the men bowing and making gestures in their French style silks, jewels, and wigs. Chris 'acted out' what sort of elaborate insults would have been devised in such times and we learnt how Joseph Addison's writings mocked current affairs with his use entertaining description as a writing style. My favourite of Addison's essays is the one about the Shilling that goes travelling around the world as an illustration of the trade of those times. Chris showed us another essay where Addison again comments on trade, he states how a woman's complete outfit 'has seen one hundred climates' for example. Addison can come across as quite xenophobic in his writing, their is also an air of superiority in his tone.

Joseph Addison's writings are the first western journalism. Addison writes with dry humour and a sarcastic undertone. He wrote in the time of the Restoration of Charles the II. Americans today are obsessed with the British history, culture and politics of the 1600's and early 1700's because it is what they based their republic on. As such it is actually easier to get hold of Addison's works in America rather than here in England. The real connection between England and America is the writings of John Locke and the reason why it is important for us to look at this 'American' element of history is because contemporary journalism today is essentially American.

It was interesting to learn that Addison mocked empiricists and that economics today basically comes out of empiricism. Chris Horrie used an example out of one of the student's bottle's of water asking why an elite brand name car is more expensive than water, when if you don't drink water you die and if you don't have a car you are ok? Why is water 60,000 times more expensive than a car? why not 70,000 times more expensive? Economics then breaks down each step and answers why, this is closelt linked to research and experience which is essentially empericism. Not how the two words are similar as well.

I am going to end this post with Chris's definition of journalism 'journalism is a business of turning information into money, or selling information'. This could be selling hard or factual news (eg. price of gold or the exchange rate) or more gossip news (like Britney Spear's latest diet), but it is information that peopl want and will pay for. The most you can really get for a newspaper, for example something like the Financial Times is £2 but if a million people want to buy it, you are in business.